What Australia needs is a genuine house of review

The Senate either rubber stamps or blocks legislation along party lines, or compromises it when there is a balance of power. A British proposal for a reformed House of Lords might provide the inspiration we need for a better system, writes Joff Lelliott.

The Senate was the focus of a lot of attention in the second half of 2013, and not much of it for good reasons.

Following the federal election it seems certain there will be some tinkering at the edges, ostensibly to reduce the chance of senators being elected with only a tiny number of primary votes.

Not that this will address the real problem, which is that it is hard to fathom what the Senate's real purpose is these days.

Its nicknames underscore the difficulty of pinning down the point of having the 76 senators: "upper house" says nothing, while "second chamber" is true in a kind of bland factual way.

Then there are the two more meaty alternatives: the "states' house" and the "house of review".

Australia's constitution was written before the party system became properly entrenched, and in that context it seemed reasonable the Senate would allow state interests to be represented directly in Parliament. But the vast majority of Senate seats are now in the firm grip of Labor, Liberal, Nationals and Greens. Even micro-parties and independents generally push partisan positions over individual state interests. It is laughable to imagine votes in the Senate breaking along state rather than party lines these days.

In terms of being a house of review, it is easy to believe the Senate lives up to this name. At some vague, general level it is true that its existence can prevent untrammelled power for the House of Representatives. But that is not the same as being a genuine House of Review.

None of the three possibilities for the Senate results in a genuine house of review. When the Senate has a majority the same as the House of Representatives, it becomes a rubber stamp, as it was for the Howard government after the 2004 election result. Alternatively, when the Opposition occasionally controls the Senate, it can simply block legislation, which it is able to do because constitutionally the two houses have almost equal power.

The third possibility is the one that will greet the Abbott Government from July this year. That is a balance of power held by a handful of senators from outside the established parties. This results in some of the worst kinds of deal making and repeated serving of vested interests, and is perhaps best encapsulated in the memory of Tasmanian Senator Brian Harradine.

But Australia need not persist with its outdated upper house. There are models elsewhere which Australia could look at, including a recent proposal for Britain's House of Lords.

House of Lords reform has been a semi-permanent feature of British political and constitutional debate for over a century now. In the later years of the last Labour government, the political parties began working on a complete overhaul of the House of Lords, not least to make it democratic. By the time the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government released a White Paper in 2011, the major parties all backed a truly radical proposal. The model eschewed the normal democratic conventions of politicians facing regular elections and serving several terms at the will of electors.

Instead, most members would be elected for gargantuan 15-year terms and would not be allowed to stand for second terms. They also would not be allowed to stand for the House of Commons for at least four years after leaving the Lords.

The proposal aimed to create a chamber free of the grip of tight party control. Members of the Lords would be free intellectually and politically because they would be unlikely to ever face another election. If they were party members, their parties would struggle to control them because many of the threats normally wielded by parties were removed.

In addition to the elected members, 20 per cent of the Lords would be crossbenchers appointed by an independent commission. Not only would this help ensure a wide range of talent in the Lords, it would also make it harder for any party to have a majority.

As with the present relationship between the Lords and the Commons, the reformed Lords would have had limits on its ability to frustrate the will of the Commons, especially on manifesto commitments of governments. Combined with the lack of firm party control, this would help ensure the House of Lords remained a genuine house of review. In a feature almost designed for Australia's federal system, members would have been elected on a regional basis, with one third of places elected at each general election.

In the end, the proposal was killed by the Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition government. Having continued with Labour's project, the two parties slowly fell-out over a range of constitutional reform issues, and having already shelved a referendum on Lords reform, an internal Conservative revolt finally killed the legislation in mid-2012.

The Australian public overwhelmingly wants a Senate which attracts the best and brightest, is not in the iron grip of party control, and which genuinely reviews legislation rather than simply rubber stamping or rejecting it based on the political make-up of the other house.

Australia should not blindly adopt a (rejected) British proposal, but the model for the reformed House of Lords might provide a useful starting point for debate on a second chamber that better meets the wishes of voters.

Dr Joff Lelliott is state director of the political think tank The Australian Fabians (QLD). View his full profile here.

Comments (174)

Professor Rosseforp:

03 Jan 2014 9:49:53am

"The Australian public overwhelmingly wants a Senate which attracts the best and brightest, is not in the iron grip of party control, and which genuinely reviews legislation rather than simply rubber stamping or rejecting it based on the political make-up of the other house" -- this is an interesting opinion, but my own view is that very few members of the Australian public know what the Senate is, know whether it is state or federal, or what it does. The same would be slightly less true of the House of Representatives, where some people could name their local member.The closest we can come to knowing the will of the Australian public is during election years, where the majority seem happy enough to go along with the current system.Having mixed with a lot of people over many years, I honestly cannot remember anyone expressing a desire for the senatorial presence of best and brightest (they don't necessarily go together - some of our best pollies have been of average intelligence at best).I can remember some people wanting the Senate to shut up and let the government (i.e. the lower house) govern without being obstructionist. Probably the loudest cries along these lines were in the Whitlam years.

the yank:

03 Jan 2014 10:26:17am

I wasn't here during the Whitlam years so I can't comment on that period but other then the period when Howard won in 2004 there has always been some drama with the senate.

I don't think this is unwelcomed. A certain amount of friction is good it causes us to think. The only change I would consider is the concept raised by Joff of reducing the chance of senators being elected with only a tiny number of primary votes.

I don't consider the system as being broken or out-dated but just enough of a thorn in the side of whichever party controls the House to have to actually negotiate with other to pass their policies.

Skeptic:

03 Jan 2014 11:16:04am

Agreed. Most of the time it all works pretty well. The idea situation is where one party does not control both the upper and lower houses, but does have the maturity to be able to negotiate with the senate. Something I can't see the current mob being able to succeed at, given what we have seen already. *shudder*

AussieRoadster:

03 Jan 2014 11:38:35am

Hi Skeptic, unfortunately there is no ideal situation at the moment. If Upper & Lower Houses are the same party, there is just a rubber stamp. If they are different parties, they just try to become roadblocks.

What we need is to separate parties being in the houses. i.e. If a party wants to run for the Lower House, then they cannot run for the Upper House.

This will separate the 2 houses. Labor, LNP & a couple of other parties for the Lower. Greens, PUP, Bob Katter & some others for the Upper. This would hopefully lead to negotiation without Lower party influence.

RayS:

It would be untruthful for any party to claim a mandate for their policies unless they gained control of both houses with a clearly articulated set of policies and intended to deliver those policies.

Whereas Abbott does not have a mandate though he ineffectually squawks that he does. He has a majority in the reps but no majority in the senate, his policies were changing from just before the election and have kept changing since the election, mostly diametrically, and he obviously did not intend to deliver the policies he went to the election with.

In the current situation, with a chaotic, divided and deceitful government, it is a damn good thing the senate is there to do its job which is to prevent a ratbag reactionary government (like the Newman government in Queensland which has no upper house) taking us back to convict days.

Colmery:

03 Jan 2014 6:06:05pm

How far we are from an ideal is the only sensible measure and it is fair to say that the party system has been seriously impacted by the dramatic drop in membership over the last few decades. Whether or not we need a state-based house of review to be structured as it is or some other way seems to me to be a lower order issue.

The key problem is that both parties and the media are disconnected from the ideals our culture was built on because the concentration of power caused by disengagement.

Skeptic:

03 Jan 2014 11:10:57am

Previous happenings in Queensland clearly demonstrate the need for a house of review! The current problem of ill-considered legislation being introduced against all common sense, simply because one party with a significant majority has a prejudice against one group in society, is reason enough to re-introduce this body urgently. Strangely, this idea never seems to get even a mention in the media. Why is that? Why is the fourth estate neglecting its responsibility to push this important issue?

Ben the lawyer:

03 Jan 2014 12:24:36pm

'Why is the fourth estate neglecting its responsibility to push this important issue?'

Why does the media have a 'responsibility' to argue for anything, particularly something that there are arguments for and against on? Surely you don't think someone has a responsibility to do something merely because you think it's a good idea?

rudski:

03 Jan 2014 5:41:51pm

Can anyone point me to this mythical publication please, I seem to be reading the wrong papers.

When will people figure out that media is a business with a model to make money and the interest of the business trumps everything else. The public interest test does not surpass the commercial interests of that business, ever. Logically no business will ever publish any news that would send it out of business - with the possible exception the news of the world.

It's fanciful for any journalist to think they are part of some mechanism that keeps the state "in check".

Guess what, you're gonna cover what you're told to cover. You won't be paid money to gallivant around Australia to keep the government "in check", you're gonna do whatever your manager tells you to do and he's going to do what the editor tells him, and on and on it goes, typically with only one goal in mind, to make ... Money. Money. Money.

Professor Rosseforp:

03 Jan 2014 7:57:06pm

That is refreshing! I know plenty of tertiary-educated persons who are very vague on the details. I know plenty of voters who voted for Tony Abbott so that he would improve schools, hospitals and trains in New South Wales. I'm certainly not a constitutional expert, and you can see that the people here (who have some degree of interest because they are commenting) have varying conceptions about the upper house. The usual line is trotted out that we need to get rid of the states, whereas little attention is paid to the notion of de-federating.I hope your high school cohort is motivated to register to vote, as fewer and fewer young people register -- and thus opt out of the system.

GJA:

If your concern is representation of States, there is the option of having Senators appointed by State governments, rather than directly elected, as was at one time the model in the US.

Another option would be to remove the double dissolution. This would ensure that whatever representation distribution is elected remains, regardless of what party controls the House, its elections coinciding with those of the House only occassionally. This might work better with an independent executive branch, but that's not currently an option.

Mango:

Voyage au bout de la nuit:

03 Jan 2014 5:05:21pm

The states represent one the biggest hurdles for a strong, united and dynamic Australia. Our Constitution under the Federation has created disparities in the Senate while State Governments have often been obstructionist and game playing in petty politics. One day Australia might mature and become atruly independent and intelligent nation. Once this happens parliamentary reform will happen as a matter of course.

Desert Woman:

Claudius Pseudonymus:

03 Jan 2014 10:42:30am

Finally, the correct question is posed. Thanx Sydney Bob.

In a country of just 25 million and in the age of broadband computers, it is just too stupid to believe why we have this superabundance of state and local govts. It is expensive sick joke that we can no longer afford or even PRETEND to be able to able to afford.

All state civil services should be Federalised incl police. The only responsibility of a state govt would be in land matters. State MPs numbers should be reduced and the scope (and expenditure) of State Parliaments significantly cut back as well.

Local govts should be amalgamated into fewer councils and local govts abolished altogether.

The amount of pen pushing, paper shuffling, red tape bounded office workers would be reduced by abt 175,000 and thus releasing this surplus labour force into the labour market and into productive services rather than just bureaucracy.

Then the Senate which votes along Party lines should also be abolished and we become a unicameral system of govt with checks and balances overseen by the judiciary.

Ben the lawyer:

03 Jan 2014 11:21:23am

'we become a unicameral system of govt with checks and balances overseen by the judiciary'

One of the worst things that could happen would be to give more power to an unelected, unrepresentative judiciary divorced from the general populace. As a lawyer, I would hate to see this task given to lawyers (more so than what already exists).

whogoesthere:

03 Jan 2014 11:29:02am

Agree 100%

in 1900 the system made sense, Sydney and Perth were a long way from each other. Today it's completely different. I'm not sure of the exact best set-up, but the current three tiers system of Government are redundant.

Given the Libs are supposedly the 'small Government' Party why don't they even start a discussion ?.

Scotto2105:

03 Jan 2014 1:11:22pm

Great point whogoesthere! You'd think the Liberals are the party of small government but when I raised state abolition (a few months before quitting in disgust over something Abbott or Newman or Pyne or Morrison did I can't remember which fool it was that tipped me over the edge) as a genunine way to reduce red tape, encourage economic growth and genuinely deal with the budget being in structural deifict some members of the lunatic right wanted to shower me with holy water and pray for my soul.

You see what I found was that a bloated government sector actually helped the political parties so that careeist politicians (rather than being drawn from a population of successful citizens) could cut their teeth as political staffers and then suck up to the "right people" so as to get pre-selected for safe seats having never actually done anything real in life e.g. Queensland's current Attorney General.

However this idea has truly come, the systemof government we are lumbered with today was relevant in 1901 but it certainly is no longer relevant today. I encourage anyone who is genuinley interested in getting rid of the antiquated state borders to find others who think the same (Beyond Federation is one) and work to remove the millstone that is around all our necks.

Professor Rosseforp:

Charles NSW:

03 Jan 2014 1:38:12pm

The three tier system of Government consisting of Local, State and Federal works best for Australia and should be left alone as it is. Sure there is improvement to be made and can only be made with careful and thoughtful planning. Too many people think short term and not thinking deeper into the consequences of their actions.

dw:

03 Jan 2014 2:49:24pm

As a Queenslander, I can assure you that having no Senate is not the answer.

Having a Senate - even one that votes along party lines - allows there to be some debate and discussion of proposed legislation. It allows the opposition to raise concerns and suggest amendments and it allows the media the opportunity to report on those concerns.

A Senate would allow committees to oversee government functions and ensure the independence of the CMC and could not be dismissed by the Premier like the PCMC was.

Terry2:

03 Jan 2014 7:19:33pm

Queenslanders have certainly become aware of the need for a process of review as currently there is no mechanism in this state to hold the government to account.If a unicameral system is to continue to operate in Queensland then, we need a solid rump of true Independents to insist that the government carefully and more thoroughly develop their legislative program and justify it not only to themselves but to the electorate through their elected members.

I would be very surprised to see Queensland elect a future state government with such an overwhelming majority : once bitten twice shy !

J.T:

03 Jan 2014 5:02:52pm

Call me paranoid...or maybe it has been the fact that the ACT has been one of the fastest growing states as of late, or maybe its because I live in WA-a sparsely populated state that generates insane Federal government revenue...

but I would be much more comfortable with no Federal Government and a strong local and state government.

Income tax to the states, company tax to the states.

Let them work out immigration and defense with spending agreed upon by all states as a contribution.

A happy little debunker:

Only the Fabians would dare to slight the elected body of work by the independant Brain Harradine.

(After his explusion from their Labor party - for daring to challenge its own perceptions of communism.)

His morales and values were the very reason his electorate kept re-electing him.

The staunch morals and values that many in his electorate saw in the much younger Bob Brown.

I would have thought the argument for senate reform would have been for more people of this calibre in the senate rather than dis'ing them - Instead we are treated to an argument for the Fabians preferred reforms.

Jungle Boy:

03 Jan 2014 11:07:41am

Fabian?

Use of antiquated, foreign and pretentious political terminology such as "Fabian" and "Tory" can show the user as being out-of-touch.

But doubtless as a happy little user of the term "Fabian" you can explain to us how the objects of Fabianism (see below) are so terrible. Or at least you can explain how these objectives attaint the memory of Senator Palpatine?

"To promote greater equality of power, wealth and opportunity; the value of collective action and public service; an accountable, tolerant and active democracy; citizenship, liberty and human rights; sustainable development; and multilateral international cooperation"

A happy little debunker:

You may be arguing that this criticism shows the author of the opinion piece is out of touch, as he is a self expressed member of the Fabian society.

Although, I think you were directing your witticism at another target.

The objects of the Fabians are high minded socialist principals - but like all of self-identified 'greater' intellect - the scent of power corrupts - absolutely.

The point in case, was the relentless pursuit of Harradine in his expressed views over their socialist agenda, that lead to Harradine being ousted from his party, nearly costing the 'Great Gough' his own job.

Yet, 38 years later - This author proves that there is no splitter, like a self made splitter - by slighting this deceased mans life's passion and work.

That you would further depreciate Harradine by likening him to a fictional evil - does you little in regard for respect.

Nell:

03 Jan 2014 5:37:47pm

Brian Harradine seemed a very good, decent man to me but as a woman and a feminist I deeply resented what his vote was able to purchase in relation to women in this country. However, let's also not forget the DLP Senator Vince Gair and his role in our political history. Yes, all sorts of shenanigans but then that's politics and that's how it's played and women just have to fight harder.

Hudson Godfrey:

03 Jan 2014 11:43:45am

In the same way that Brian Harradine is perhaps only remembered by many for being in the wrong side of the abortion debate, it might also be said that to characterise Lelliott's appeal to a different kind of democracy as Fabianism smacks of a partisan view ignoring the very possibility of a democracy in which people who disagree with conservatives are even represented. This is not to say that we can't have good governance without Senate reform or that your mate Harradine wasn't well respected at the time for other reasons, but you can't have your cake and eat around the fillings you don't like to savour all the icing for yourself in anything resembling a proper democracy.

Hoju:

03 Jan 2014 10:01:51am

An interesting and balanced article. Seems like a good start to 2014 for The Drum.

Im not sure we will ever see The Senate return to being the protector of the rights of the States. Nor do I think that is necessarily required. But that could also be because I think we are far too small a country to require so many levels of Government.

Of course, this sort of thinking wont go down well with all the bureaucrats who frequent this place.

Machiavelli's Cat:

the yank:

03 Jan 2014 11:15:55am

And those picked by the LNP are there because of their deep abiding desire to screw unions and nothing else?

Unless we no longer live in a democratic society ALL sections of the community should be represented in our government. That means mining magnates, business leaders, those with a concern for the environment AND unions.

Craig2:

03 Jan 2014 3:08:55pm

Yank, you still don't get it do you? I can join the ALP tomorrow if I wanted to but if I want to be pre-selected, I HAVE to be part of a union. So what if the ALP support workers pre-select a member of their choice, the union bosses have the final say on the candidate of choice and that candidate ie, union member, gets the running for the seat of whatever. The poster was clear in my reading, you're choosing to muddy the waters and write some other "thoughtful" analysis which you believe is right........welcome to Yank world!

the yank:

03 Jan 2014 5:15:11pm

You don't get it. Look at how the new ALP leader was chosen. Does the LNP have anything as open and transparent as that approach?

It is a labour orientated party so yes the unions are involved you assume that union bosses do the selection prove it. Show me the background of each and every ALP member of the House and Senate and prove that they were put in their position on the direction of the union.

GJA:

03 Jan 2014 11:27:46am

The "winnable positions"? What on earth are you talking about? Either you're a candidate for a Senate seat or you are not, and if you are, you have the same chance of election as any other candidate, based on the ballots submitted. Union membership doesn't change that. Another troll, eh?

Machiavelli's Cat:

03 Jan 2014 12:08:36pm

You should read more. Any candidate selected in the 1st or 2nd positions of either of the major parties' ticket is virtually guaranteed to win a senate seat (aided by above the line voting). This is why there are factional battles to fill both these spots. In the ALP these factional battles are dominated by various Unions.

novae:

03 Jan 2014 12:23:18pm

The winnable positions are those first on the list. ALP ensures candidates who have earned it (been a loyal union official for years) are first on the ticket, and other, less deserving, ALP candidates are pushed down.

firthy:

03 Jan 2014 12:55:16pm

Wrong. So totally wrong. If a major party places a candidate in the first spot on their senate ticket they are basically assured of election (assuming most people vote above the line of course - which in reality they do). So that place is very important indeed. Whether union membership (or any affiliation) affects that decision I cannot say. Certainly I thought the original poster drew too long a bow in that regard. But your response to that post simply shows that you do not understand how the senate voting system works.

GCS:

03 Jan 2014 10:25:17am

Maybe someone should tell SOME of the unions that- they should also tell some (maybe most) of the finance industry, business and anyone who engages in dishonest.selfish; narrow self focused, self serving practices.They are neither the brightest nor the best.

Leon Fairmind:

03 Jan 2014 10:06:01am

The British proposal looks pretty good indeed Dr Joff.

Not very likely to get up here either unfortunately. Faulty as our system is, the obstructionist version is fairly useful when dangerous ideology governments get into power...and we need one badly at the moment to contain Abbott's excesses.

AndyM:

03 Jan 2014 10:28:41am

"dangerous ideology" = ideology i don't like, and i resent the fact that many citizens disagree with me and voted for these "dangerous" ideas, so i'll play the "extreme right / dangerous ideology" card rather than putting a positive case.

Rocky:

03 Jan 2014 10:07:22am

When the best and brightest that the South Australian Liberal party can put forward to the Senate consists of Cory Bernardi and Mary Jo Fisher, one really does suspect that the brits might be onto something.

I have always wondered if having a senate chosen at random from the population (like a very well-paid, long-term version of jury duty) would work. Offer eligible citizens (say with no criminal record and a specified minimum level of education) the opportunity to earn $200kpa and participate in the democratic process for 4 years.

As Joff says, what we have now manifestly does not work as originally intended, perhaps with the exception of the senate estimates process.

AndyM:

Rocky:

03 Jan 2014 11:15:52am

Name them if you think them unworthy. With the exception of Conroy, I think Labor has a pretty strong group of senators, and the Greens are well, the Greens. They do what they do and have a somewhat limited talent pool to choose from.

The Liberals however have many, many more senators appointment is a complete mystery. I mean, Bill Heffernan? what is he doing within shouting distance of authority and responsibility.

There are clearly some very intelligent and capable people on both sides, but there are also some utter pillocks. At least if it was a random selection, the inclusion of pillocks could be seen as accidental rather than intentional.

AndyM:

AndyM:

03 Jan 2014 10:31:09am

50% of the population have below average intelligence (it's actually below median, but it's really beside the point).

Would you really want 50% of the senate with people who may have zero interest in governance and in control of making decisions about policy implementation? That's why we have representatives - to represent the ideas we like rather than having to vote individually on each and every item coming up for consideration.

Steve Mount:

03 Jan 2014 1:05:17pm

And?

Intelligence has little to do with political success. Indeed, the most successful politicians are driven not by intelligence, but by a bullet-proof ego, a desire for self-benefit and blind faith in a dogma.

The most intelligent, non political folk, meanwhile, are in a back room somewhere, doing scientific or medical research, solving engineering or social problems, or performing life saving medical procedures in an operating theatre.

firthy:

03 Jan 2014 12:59:58pm

Neither are good reps in my view. But they probably represent a reasonable proportion of the electorate. And ultimately that is what this is all about - parliament should be a reasonable representation of the electorate.

APM:

03 Jan 2014 1:35:08pm

I agree that the current system does roughly proportionately represent the views of the community. However, we need to enhance democracy and standards by keeping people out of the Senate with less than say 2 percent of the primary vote and that only get in through grubby preference farming that is opaque and takes power away from voters.

APM:

03 Jan 2014 7:35:23pm

Am I supposed to research convoluted preference swapping between minor parties before I vote? I don't and I have a deep interest in politics including two degrees in it. If voting is an ordeal then the system fails democracy. You are not being reasonable. Your tone is patronising and intolerant.

AussieRoadster:

03 Jan 2014 11:25:59am

So, no different to where they are now?

At the moment, the State Governments support 1 major hospital (and normally 1 major children's hospital) in each state.

I am just saying the running costs of these major hospitals should not be born on that council alone (assuming the State Government is removed). A "kitty" should be made available for all nominated major hospitals.

Applaudanum:

03 Jan 2014 11:10:18am

Identifying it when it occurs and explaining the reasons for identifying it as such has always been the best place to start. You'll be surprised how often it works.

Making a good case, funnily enough, depends on making good case. Thoughtless barracking, re-iteration of irrelevant points, diversion and obfuscation only serve those with something to hide or nothing to show.

MJLC:

03 Jan 2014 12:04:57pm

In terms of dietary and ecological requirements the Forrest in question needs more than just increased fruit production Applaudanum - there's a way-too strong presence of vegetable under the canopy, a shortage of meat roaming in the shadows, the understory has degraded to become same-old story, and the buttressing superstructure is decidedly old growth. The (b)logging that's been attempted to date hasn't really improved the situation, and I fear that even chaining a few dreadlocked Greens to it in some sort of desperate act of defiance wouldn't help.

Some Forrests are just naturally suited to the production of sleepers I'm afraid.

Forrest Gardener:

APM:

03 Jan 2014 12:25:28pm

Yes lets have an independent commission make appointments for presenters and journalists to ensure the ABC can adhere to representing a diverse range of views. Sticking up for minorities has some merit but systemic bias against the majority in inexcusable. I am waiting for a Drum article that is critical of the asylum seeker regime and does so without concessions to political correctness. The ABC is genetically unable to tolerate this so must be co-erced.

whatif:

03 Jan 2014 12:27:17pm

wonders will cease when the likes of you can concede that all parties whether your preferred or not is in agreement, that's the point of this, get away with your digs that blame one party for the wrongs and pat the other party on the back for their lies. if you have an open mind and look past a lot of bombastic arrogant people you will find that both parties should be able to work for the good of all people, that's what the government is supposed to do, not pamper to their own petty ideas with out consulting the broader picture. That's where you need to grow up instead of playing the blame game that the LNP is so damn good at.

Miles:

03 Jan 2014 10:16:43am

The old UK House of Lords may not have been 'democratic' in any way but it fulfilled its function as a 'house of review' more or less effectively for generations. It is interesting that since it has been democratised (by the Blair government in the 90's) moves are afoot to distance it once again from sordid party politics! I agree with Dr Lelliott's argument that the Senate is too political and would benefit (as would the nation) from reform. Unfortunately in the current political climate consensus on anything so fundamental seems unlikely. However, it is certainly worth serious consideration for the future.

James Brooks:

03 Jan 2014 10:20:00am

Jeff as the reforms you?ve outlined aim to improve the legislative review function of the Senate, while weakening its legislative power, presumably the primary aim of the reforms would be to improve the parliamentary accountability structure.

It?s interesting that the way you have proposed to achieve this is to have twenty percent of the Senate nominated by an independent committee, with the remaining Senators being elected once for a fifteen year term. The unelected, committee nominated Senators would be perceived to have zero democratic legitimacy, and would have a hard time convincing the public as to why they should have a right to potentially block an elected government?s legislation. Paul Keating?s summary of the Senate as ?unrepresentative swill? would soon become ?unelected swill?.

The remaining Senators would be next to unaccountable to the public for their actions if they know they never need to go to an election again as you?ve suggested. You hold that having fifteen year terms will reduce the parties ability to control the Senators because ?many of the threats normally wielded by parties were removed?, but the same goes for the public?s ability to hold elected Senators to account.

I?m not suggesting that there isn?t scope for reform of the Senate, but if improving the accountability of government is the main game then it?s important to ensure that Senators are not protected from public accountability in the process as you have suggested.

Miowarra:

03 Jan 2014 1:23:41pm

Senators aren't "held to account" in any practical way in the current system so the proposed reforms don't detract in any way from the status quo ante.

What MIGHT happen (and it's an outcome I'd hope to see) is that electors will look rather more carefully at the candidates before placing their votes knowing that this is a one-shot. It should also mean that candidates have to be more open about their policies before election.

The most recent Liberal Party plan of "Vote for us and we'll tell you what we'll do AFTER the election" just wouldn't be acceptable.

Bruce:

03 Jan 2014 10:20:51am

This article touches on important things, toe-in-the-water wise.

What is the point, indeed, of having two houses of Political Party Members? It certainly denies the idea of the smaller house being somehow representative of a range of the reasonable opinions of the populace.

That this comes about reflects the terrible situation of political thuggery that we call the Party System, which is to impose authoritarianism, approaching totalitarianism frequently, onto the political life of a people who become a democracy in word only. The preservation of privilege (earned or unearned) versus the people's champions who have lost their way entirely but not their thirst for power.

Can that possibly be what politics should be about?

So yes, think about reform of the Senate, and of the real need for a functional house of review. A ballot paper not entirely designed by the parties for the parties would be a step.

But think too about the need for reform of the Lower House.

It seems strange but I think much of its weakness flows from our voting for its members as we do. Our system of voting automatically leads to the curse of party politics and of gang behaviours in our governance.

The selection of members by ballot from the entire electorate would be much to be preferred.

Such a people's house could determine issues as they arose and which, I suggest, should be discussed by the best people available to enlighten them who would set out their ideas in public forums that every citizen could watch and listen to.

We should vote on the very big issues - our national character issues. All we do now is to demean the sacrifice billions of people have made before to put us in our present state of possibility.

Tim P:

03 Jan 2014 10:22:01am

Isn't the real issue here the artificial conflict that the party political system maintains in order to disguise the fact that the parties, though superficially different, are really just different flavours in the same box of chocolates?

And who owns the box?

Until we elect representatives that are willing to reject the debt driven economic paradigm, to destroy threats to our sovereignty and to act for the benefit of the people they represent, all the fiddling at the edges and riotous discord during question time will remain futile; a mere distraction.

GrumpyOldMan:

03 Jan 2014 10:25:42am

An even more fundamental and urgent question that must be addressed is whether the current Constitution adequately reflects the needs of a 21st Century democratic nation rather than a compromise of the self-interests of a bunch of 19th Century British colonies.

In other words, do we need to bring the Australian Constitution up to date to reflect our current needs, aspirations, technologies and global interests, and to eliminate the obvious duplications and inefficiencies that are inherent in our 19th Century colonial Constitution?

Surely, any decision about making the Senate a more effective 'house of review' should only be made when decisions are made about the distribution of roles and responsibilities among an agreed upon mix of national/state/regional/local governments and community groups.

And before all the usual conservative trolls start screaming in protest at this suggestion, can I suggest they address the ultimate democratic question which is ... 'why we should never ask that question'? It is, after all, just an expression of my 'freedom of speech', just as it is your right to give well argued reasons why we should stick with our current Constitution for ever!

Machiavelli's Cat:

03 Jan 2014 10:58:04am

Absolutely, these questions should be asked. I for one am totally in favour of reducing duplication amongst our governments. I want a reduction in creeping centralisation by removing the Federal government from State responsibilities. I would go further by increasing the number of States (on a more regional basis) in order to decentralise the increasingly centralised States (there is more to the world than Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne etc). Standards should be set at a National level with service delivery determined a a State (regional) level.

Mortan:

GrumpyOldMan:

03 Jan 2014 12:51:13pm

The cat says ... "I want a reduction in creeping centralisation by removing the Federal government from State responsibilities."

So, you would have 8 state/territory governments still doing the things that were laid out as 'state responsibilities' in the 19th Century colonial constitution, whether or not it makes any sense in the 21st Century with computers, fast transport and national broadband networks, none of which existed in the 19th Century?

You are completely missing the point of the question. Never mind, the conservatives will make sure it never happens, won't they.

Machiavelli's Cat:

03 Jan 2014 1:44:42pm

@GrumpyOldMan

Nothing to do with the conservatives. The Constitution would have to be totally changed to remove the States. Currently the Federation exists because of the States not the other way around. Please do not introduce partisan nonsense especially when it is irrelevant.

PS I understand you point but believe you are completely wrong. Service delivery (what the States mainly do) is always best managed from close to the point of delivery. This allows for variations tailored to local conditions. Bamaga is a long way from Tuggeranong even with the internet.

GrumpyOldMan:

03 Jan 2014 3:00:11pm

So, we are bound to the inefficiencies of our current state-based Constitution for ever, no matter what?

Is that what you want? Is that what the majority of Australians want? Or is it that we are too blooming lazy to think about a more efficient national form of democratic government for the 21st Century and beyond?

gnome:

03 Jan 2014 2:03:22pm

Totally wrong premise there Grumps- the Constitution allocated certain specific powers to the Commonwealth. In doing so it did not take any powers away from the states, though commonwealth law overrides state law where they are inconsistent.

The states' powers are not laid out in th Constitution. There are no limits to the matters over which the states can claim responsibility.

The High Court, which was never intended to be an activist body, held that the external affairs power allowed the Commonwealth to enter into foreign treaties with effect on State powers which were never intended to be handed to the Commonwealth. As a result, the Commonwealth now claims the power to do such things as remove cattle from Victorian state parks. The people were never asked.

GrumpyOldMan:

03 Jan 2014 3:12:46pm

Just try to think about what Australia would, or could, be like if we weren't hamstrung by a state-based Constitution that only begrudgingly recognises that we all live in a single country and protects costly and inefficient inter-state rivalries and inconsistencies.

Can you catch a glimpse of the 'national wood' for all the 'state trees'? The current Constitution has well and truly reached its 'use by' date and needs to be replaced by a modern 'national' Constitution which may, or may not, recognize the current states.

Rob:

03 Jan 2014 10:31:09am

I well recall the night of the 2004 election- as the senate result was being called Qld, Senator Boswell called John Howard to tell him the coalition has control of the senate- 'Its open slather" he said.House of Review my foot- as with much of our 'democracy" it isl all about POWER- and power sharing at that- power sharing between Governments, political parties, business, unions and other vested interests- all at our expense.

gbe:

darthseditious:

Stuffed Olive:

03 Jan 2014 10:39:27am

There is nothing in the Constitution which says the Senate is a House of Review. It was to do with the States and we all know that is long gone and Senators are elected on party lines. The Senate has equal power with the House of Representatives (except regarding taxation). If you want to look to change I think it should be in the election system which has become too complicated and able to be abused. It is ridiculous that a person can be elected with a handful of primary votes boosted by trickle down preferences. Having said that, the Senate does do review work and has had excellent committees. I wouldn't copy or select bits from the British when we can be far more original all by ourselves. I'd rather concentrate on getting rid of state borders when it comes to electorate boundaries and making the Senate proportionally representative. Each state having the same number of Senators is clearly wrong and outdated.

Stuffed Olive:

gbe:

03 Jan 2014 10:39:47am

There are interesting times ahead for the senate the loss of ballot boxes in WA and a new vote looming the government could face the possibility of defeat in seats they expected to win only months earlier due to now unfavorable public opinion.

Promises made by the government to repeal the carbon tax could now be impossible due to the continuation of a so called hostile senate.

The government if rejected can choose to go to the people or wait until the next election depending on politics so either way the people choose we cannot interferer with this working system.

Forrest Gardener:

03 Jan 2014 10:41:01am

Let's see. Governments are frequently frustrated at their inability to get legislation through the senate. On the other hand sometimes oppositions are frustrated at their inability to prevent legislation from passing through the senate. This, Joff concludes, is because the senate is not acting as a house of review.

It may pay the Labor Fan Club to recall which political party abolished the upper house in Queensland. How smart did that look?

As always, Joff, those such as yourself who seek a perfect world shouldn't wish too hard. And don't tinker with things you don't understand, especially when the existing system has proven itself over time to be self-correcting.

Forrest Gardener:

Artful Dodger:

03 Jan 2014 6:14:56pm

Precisely my point FG- just like the self serving'market' has sown the seeds of its own destruction- as well as the livlihoood of the millions it has hurt- is hurting and may hurt."Hate' is the word you used -your judgement there is as flawed as elsewhere.

P38:

Forrest Gardener:

03 Jan 2014 11:50:19am

Ah, P38. Pleased to see that the irony has not escaped you.

For those who are not aware, in Queensland, the Labor party abolished the upper house to break the conservative stranglehold and as a result brought about the Bjelke-Peterson years. Interestingly, there have been consistent efforts to re-establish the upper house.

What a pity Joff did not turn his attention to the Queensland situation when he advocated reform of the commonwealth senate.

Alison Cann:

03 Jan 2014 10:59:10am

Joff,You pull you argument apart in the first sentence."The Senate either rubber stamps or blocks legislation along party lines, or compromises it when there is a balance of power."It does all that? That is a very busy House of Review.1. Rubber stamps.2. Blocks legislation3. Compromises.

Now just what does the House of Representatives do?1. Rubber stamps.2. Blocks legislation.3. Compromises.The Senate then Reviews what the House of Reps does and the Senate then becomes the House of Review as the House of Review has to cover what the House of Reps does but to a higher degree.

Pete the Eagle:

03 Jan 2014 11:02:05am

Get rid of it and save the taxpayers a fortune. Senators are always going to vote for party policies no matter how good or bad.Let the government of the day live or die by its own ability or incompetence.

Lehan Ramsay:

03 Jan 2014 11:06:10am

I don't know though, I'm thinking more of a common-sense board, a kind of system, a bit like a jury; pensioners, unemployed, disabled people, small business owners. It works for the law system, surely it can work for parliament?

APM:

03 Jan 2014 11:06:50am

I couldn't trust an independent commission to make apolitical Senate appointments. Public bodies like this are always stacked with Left wing stooges linked to unions and human rights lawyers/advocates. It's just how it works.

Lehan Ramsay:

03 Jan 2014 11:15:41am

Actually though I think the parties that would have to vote on it are pretty happy with the way things are; sure they have to take turns but sometimes one gets two turns and we even had a time when two got one turn so they would probably get less money with this Lord system and have to grow their own vegetables and so they probably wouldn't want it.

NikMak:

03 Jan 2014 11:18:08am

I think career politics has been at the root of the public's friction with the government for a long time. We don't have representatives who are interested in genuine governance and change, but are most concerned with their careers and their pensions, and more often than not, their re-employability.

Any change that puts limits on the length of time you can serve as a senator is a very good start - maybe not minimum 15 year terms though (that is a very long time).

But, as a quick example, we could go with maximum ten year terms for each level of government, with each term of government lasting 5 years instead of 3. Politicians would still be well payed, but their pensions could be played with to make them less of an incentive for staying in power at all costs (I have no idea how though). This same idea could just as easily apply to the house of representatives too. The exact figure here is unimportant though; wether it be ten years maximums or 15 year maximums. The important change is to eliminate "politician" as a viable and permanent career path.

Personally I would prefer a change so that senators have no party allegiances either, but the maximum term idea is the more important one.

Albert:

What we must do is take party politics out of the Senate. We cannot do that with any system involving elections or direct appointments.

The hereditary system for the House of Lords is one way of fixing the problem, but a simpler method is one suggested by others here.

Senators would be selected by ballot from voters, preferably with some minimum educational qualification. They could serve for three years with one-third changing each year, to maintain some continuity.

This would ensure that the House of Review (or States House) would be made up entirely of people who really do represent the public viewpoint.

rudski:

Joff, I honestly believe that the Senate is only part of the problem, the real problem is politics in general.

It is BS, lets call it what is it, when you know that each division in the house this year will end up being a 84 / 48 count. It's wrong.

A member of parliament should not be coerced, that means that even AFTER the caucus meeting, a member can and should be able to reconsider his intentions. But that never happens. Look at history and what happened to each member of the ALP who crossed the floor, did they end up having a fruitful political career?No, each was stripped off any chance to further their career.

Imagine if we had representatives and senators who acted in the national interests and not their political interests. For example, a political party these days believes it's in the national interests if it remain in power.

I encourage all readers to visit the Parliview website, and watch the Senate vote when gay marriage was defeated, does anyone see Penny Wong in the chamber?

No.

Now think about why she wasn't present, such a massive personal issue - welcome to politics in Australia where back room deals rule.

Hudson Godfrey:

03 Jan 2014 11:53:19am

The problem with this isn't just that it hasn't been tried but that we would it seems have no way of being sure that we'd foreseen any unintended consequences. So the theory that says freedom from influence by the party system is one thing we could structurally improve within a "proper house of review", doesn't extend to providing that senators who'll never face another election would be free from other motivating factors, most notably corruption. After all who would they be accountable to?

I tend to the view that real problems are seldom solved by tipping the balance all the way to some opposite extreme. We do need to remove the influence of parties over the house intended to be that of review within our parliamentary model. But we have at the last election already canvassed ways to democratise the ballot so that preference deals are rendered at least no more meaningful than in the house of representatives. If we do that then heavily as we must rely upon an informed and engaged public for the quality of our democracy I think it is as much as we can and should do.

Artful Dodger:

03 Jan 2014 6:46:35pm

I agree HG-probelms are seldom solved by tipping the balance to some opposite extreme -sometimes it may become necessary but that is a rarity.The problem is not so much the make up of the Senate but politics in general.Politics have been caught up in the complexities of the modern world- globalisation, debt- inter connectedness and all the while politicians have become prisoners to campaign funding.

anote:

03 Jan 2014 11:55:52am

It is unrealistic to think that voting along party lines can be prevented.

Yes, better representation is required. Firstly, the number of senators per state needs to be a ratio of population. Secondly, the number of senators per party needs to be a ratio of the votes the party gets, with due regard to giving independents a fair go. There are obvious difficulties coming up with an equitable formulation to implement this but I suggest it should be obvious that despite such imperfections it would be better that the current system.

A bigger problem is integrity of the representatives, whether in the House of Representatives or senators. In the House of Representatives they occasionally have 'conscience' votes. However, that is just a pathetic euphemism by which the party leadrership very occaionally allows them to vote differently from the leadership. Parliamentarians should always be voting according to what they believe their constituents would want (constistent with judgments of making decisions on their behalf, of course ... perfection is unacheivable). If they cannot do that conscientiously then they should resign. Even when exercising 'conscience' votes as they stand they should not vote simply according to personal belief. Contrary as it may seem to many I think our politicians need to be paid more to get quality.

get real:

03 Jan 2014 12:10:56pm

The major problem with the senate is that it is not representative of the people and only arose as a compromise to get the smaller states to join the federation. How can a senator from say south Australia or Tasmania possibly be taken seriously when they represent a fraction of the people that a senator from the larger states represent-as Keating famously stated 'the senate is un-representative swill'. Other obvious issues of course are the behaviour of the senators who see themselves there simply to obstruct the will of the people and also the often silly illogical way they conduct business. The answer is of course a change in the constitution where the senate which is suppose to represent the small states, is amended to represent the people -by more states or allocation of senators to states based on population. I will not go into the mega manipulation of the preference system which in itself makes the whole system a joke!GR

Bahbet:

03 Jan 2014 12:47:17pm

Thanks for clarifying this extreme disparity ,Unknown. Before other more controversial changes are debated, restoring that situation of disparity to more equitable representation is a relatively simple thing to address.

Scotto2105:

03 Jan 2014 1:18:27pm

If my memory serves me correctly and forgive me if I am wrong the number of senators for each state had nothing to do with the population but that each state had an equal representation in this house to prevent the larger states of NSW and VIC dominating the Commonwealth.

firthy:

03 Jan 2014 12:45:49pm

I can understand the authors concern with the current arrangements for electing the senate. Certainly the senate no longer serves the role it was designed for which was as a upper house which represents state interests.

The idea put forward to fix the problem (the UK 15 year term idea) I find to be abhorrent. If the author thinks that a 15 year term will keep politicians honest then he may as well start believing in the tooth fairy. I can easy see people running for office under such a system and lying through their teeth in order to obtain office well knowing that they would then hold that office for 15 years - no matter how they actually vote once elected. We have enough problems with behaviour of that kind with our current system so why on earth would we make it worse? Start with fixing the current preference system which is open to being gamed.

Digby:

03 Jan 2014 12:46:08pm

How about abolishing the Senate and instead have larger lower house electorates with multiple members -also eliminates 'safe' seats that are ignored by losing party; ensures all Ministers have to face their opposite; and makes votes more equal

Lehan Ramsay:

03 Jan 2014 12:52:08pm

Let's try our new House of Lords on the subject of Climate Change. Liberals: no there isn't we'd have bought it if we could see it. Labor: yes there is we got a label onto it. Nationals: busy sewing. Greens: under arrest. Lords: look for goodness sakes there are so many more important issues to address here what about the Wondon Twaffic it's a disAster.

Now lets try them on the Refugee issue. Liberals: we just want orderly queues. Labor: online, put it online, we've got a handle on virtual. Nationals: did you say copper? Greens: under arrest somewhere else. Lords: don't we have a smaller island to send them to? No don't go off to the Governor General General again, talk to Phillip first.

Martin:

03 Jan 2014 12:55:08pm

Certainly rules need to be changed to reflect the society of the day.

When the Federation was formed only a small number of male landholders were eligible to vote. At the time the 48 hour week was the norm.Now almost everyone can vote if they want to and the 38 hour week is the norm.

The existing Senate although not a creature of the states as was meant to be has served us well. As have the States and the Councils.Yes there are deficiencies in all levels of government- just as there will be in any changes to governments

I don't think any level is government is broken and perhaps some judicious changes are in order- but nothing major

BJA:

03 Jan 2014 1:23:09pm

Far better than a house of review would be expert committees to review all legislation with their opinion published and open to the public before the matters are debated in the Parliament.The members of the various committees should be appointed by their professional colleagues.

Such committees should also have the function of proposing legislation required in their particular areas. These proposals should also be available to the public at the same time as they become available to the parliament.

I have no doubt whatever that a committee comprising a cross section of the entire medical fraternity would have very sound ideas on what our health system needs. Similarly any committee of scientists would have little trouble identifying what their profession needs to function successfully.

I'm sure the same is true of all professions.

What we have now is unnecessarily uneconomic, far less effective than necessary, and in some serious ways, downright stupid.

The current Federal Government's views on and actions related to global warming are a good example of just how idiotic an elected government can get.

If governments knew that a published opinion by an expert committee was publicly available, and that the electorate would have it as a reference to assess the government's behaviour against at the next election, we would have far better governments.

As it is engineers tell me that the cost of road construction has gone up X5 in the last few years, medicos despair of ever getting the reforms that they know the health system requires, and senior scientists refuse appointments to a Professorship because of the mind-numbing entanglement of bad legislation that the position involves.

Scotto2105:

03 Jan 2014 3:08:40pm

That's something that is well worth thinking about and makes a lot of sense.

My two cents:

I wouldn't give the committees veto over legislation and nor would there be a permament standing committee but experts would be called upon and drawn from across the country to deliver opinions to the House as and when needed. As you correctly point out elected politicians would then need to explain to the electorate why they voted against the expert committee advice - there may be prefectly valid reasons for voting against the advice but at least the members of the house would have to tabl their reasons why and the public could judge.

Scotto2105:

03 Jan 2014 1:25:35pm

The author makes a very good point re the "iron grip of the parties" and i wonder if one solution might be to grant members of the house of review a secret ballot so that no one knows, especially the factional bosses, (and they exist on both sides) can take any recrimination against the senators who genuinely vote with their heads or their hearts and not just along party lines.

The only negative I've come up with is that the lack of transparency could lead to accusations of and the possibility of senators being "on the take" from vested interests but considering their eventual vote would be secret the vested interest group could not even be sure they were actually getting value for their money.

Albert:

The problem is that the voting public need to know how their senators vote, so secret ballots won't work.

There is no possibility that the Senate will actually review legislation adequately as long as we have political parties controlling the members.

We could replace almost every member of the Senate with a trained pigeon. They can be trained to peck at coloured disks and we just need a set that will peck at a red, blue or green disk as required to get the same result as we currently have.

The only Senators that would need to be paid more than birdseed would be those that are not from a major party.

ram:

03 Jan 2014 1:26:51pm

What Australia needs is a Federal level ICAC with powers of prosecution, similar to what India has just set up. Otherwise the same interests that bribe the lower house politicians just bribe the upper house politicians and nothing changes. The small number of parties in the lower house also facilitates corruption - fewer party bosses to bribe.

M2M:

03 Jan 2014 1:38:48pm

An interesting idea particularly with regard to a single 15 year term which cannot be repeated. However the Australian Senate has acted as a House of Review from time to time - particularly when the Australian Democrats held the balance of power. They did not vote as a block and they scrutinised all legislation on its merits under both Labor and Coalition governments. Perhaps it is not so much structure as people that matter. If a group holds the balance of power and is comprised of intelligent, hard working people committed to rational investigation and debate then we can have a genuine house of review in Australia without Constitutional change. Of course, the reverse holds true. If we did somehow manage to change to the rejected British model, we would still need intelligent, hard working people committed to rational investigation and debate. Having ideologues sitting in our Senate for 15 years makes one shudder.

R. N. England:

03 Jan 2014 1:40:29pm

When the Government has a clear senate majority, it's the same situation as if there were no Senate at all (except for the great extra cost of the Senate to taxpayers). If the last term of the Howard government is anything to go by, it's a situation that gives the Government enough rope to hang itself. Not necessarily a bad thing. The incoming half of the senate is a disaster though, with bone-heads getting elected that nobody had ever heard of, let alone intentionally voted for.As for a proportion senators appointed by an "independent commission", take a look at the Thai senate. They have that. Just recently their "independent" Constitutional Court disallowed a Government proposal to change the Constitution to an all-elected Senate as "unconstitutional". Now those Government members are under investigation by the "independent" Corruption Commission for daring to suggest that the Senate be made fully democratic.

veto yes:

2. allow only net revenue contributors to vote in the senate election - this will impose discipline on governments too keen to spend other peoples money on courting the gimme more vote.

Whitlam ruined the Senate in the 70s by adding more senators so that it is 6 per election. When it was only 5 the same party normally had power in both houses - giving a more stable and accountable outcome.

An independent commission would never work, like the FWA lot it would be stacked by the ALP who just cannot help themselves but lay booby traps to stymie for the voters intent.

Maynard:

03 Jan 2014 2:08:54pm

Keating used to refer to them as unrepresentative swill. Basically the problem with the senate is its anti democratic electorate whereby a vote in the mendicant states is worth at least four times that in the working states. This profound rottenness has given rise to the mendicant states basically getting their own way to protect their lifestyles at the expense of places like western Sydney where not only do they pay their way but they also pay for the swill in Hobart and Adelaide.This rotten house needs total reform so that it can add to Australia not bludge. Imagine Tasmania and south Australia adding value to Australia. Now we would all like to see that.

Demosthenes II:

03 Jan 2014 2:13:05pm

Reading all this confirms that the root of the problem is the party system. One party is in and the other is out. Each demeans the other as the cause of current problems and moans about not having an unfettered right to indulge whatever whims they may desire. Meanwhile in the wider world life goes on as if our pollies had never been born. Each 3 years the band plays, 2 or 3 voters in a hundred change their votes and the other side is in, rearranges the deck chairs (in larger proportion than the voter swing) and the cycle repeats just the same as before.

Remove the party system and we would trend towards reasoned debate and consensus decisions more in line with the approximately 50/50 party views of the electorate. So, how to rebalance this?

Two things. First appoint independent non political speakers to both houses, thus ending party rigged control of debates. Second, install from-your-seat secret electronic voting in both houses, making every vote a conscience vote.

There are those that say they need to know how the pollies vote. But we don't know not because they vote on party lines. I'd rather not know, but see reasoned debate and be assured of unpressured voting on all issues. The alternative is what we have now, and I know that is much worse.

Bahbet:

03 Jan 2014 3:08:25pm

The gem that catches my eye in this concise piece is this 'install from-your-seat secret electronic voting in both houses' . Commercial uses of this superb technology have already refined it , and it need not detract from the pomp and ceremony which the venerable traditions of parliament sometimes requires . It's introduction might finally enable those in the voting seats to get down to the business of responsible collective decision making with the least fuss and subject to the minimum interference. Surely it is time for the duress of partisan allegiance to be backgrounded somewhat, and the opportunity given to those incumbent to use all the influences available to them in their individual and unique synthesis. At the very least it might be a real renaissance of conscience voting which will fortify the historical moral backbone of our system.This idea is worth an experimental turn, what is there to lose?

Seano:

03 Jan 2014 3:05:18pm

Remember what the GG told us: First there will need to be a young girl or boy born somewhere on Australian soil, and then they will have to go to school and grow up, and get into politics, and 'then' they may perhaps in 50 years or thereabouts become Australia's first head of state, wasn't it?

EMH:

03 Jan 2014 3:17:21pm

Originally the Senate was expected NOT to contain Ministers and I think the first step to cleaning up the Senate's act would be to get all the ministers out of it for good. The second step would be to do away with the idea of it being "the State's House". Third would be to make sure that candidates for the Senate do not belong to any political party and if they join one while in the Senate they immediately become ordinary citizens, Senators no longer. 4th, no senator should ever be able to stand for more than one term which would be limited to maybe 9 years. Retired senators would never be permitted to run for public office again. Finally Senator candidates should be vetted by a citizens commission drawn from the lower and middle classes, the rich being entirely banned. Only senate candidates passed as worthy by this citizens commission would be eligible to stand.

The Senate should never be able to block supply or in any other way to bring down a sitting government.

Demosthenese II:

03 Jan 2014 3:26:22pm

JMJ - A republic has little to do with this. While being a Republic may warm the cackles of your heart is will do nothing of value to affect individuals or Australia as a whole. It is irrelevant to this discussion in that if you could wave you wand and make us one this instant, nothing would change in the Upper or Lower houses or their processes.

Now, depending on the model of republic chosen, a Republic may make governing Australia worse. Specifically if we were to have an elected "President" with executive powers, with whom would the legislative buck stop? We would have potentially three levels of federal government, one of which would be tantamount to a dictatorship of one, able to claim a mandate to veto anything the parliament might pass. I go into shock at the thought of a party partisan President! If we had instead an appointed President with powers similar to the current GG then there would be no change to the operation of parliament whatsoever. Partisan Party Politics would continue to prevail.

Let's deal with the current two chamber system and fix that first, if we can.

WhaleHunt Fun:

03 Jan 2014 3:30:27pm

"The Australian public overwhelmingly wants a Senate which attracts the best and brightest, is not in the iron grip of party control ..."

Is this the stupidest remark able to be expressed in english?They elect cretins like the Greens, the Democrats and the Emily's Babby Killer Listers and you reckon they want bright people.If not the stupidest remark, it is certainly up there.

Lehan Ramsay:

03 Jan 2014 4:31:25pm

I don't think that the Australian public really wants to be reminded of the iron grip, Whalehunt Fun. It takes them back to those days in 1974 of the Countdown Fernando Crisis, and of course those wrought political times of The Dismissal.

NotMyName:

03 Jan 2014 3:44:24pm

The house of Lords in the UK was always looked at as supporters of the Conservative side of politics historically and for their own use against the Socialist party. During Margaret Thatcher's term in office the house of Lords was the only block against her government's legislation; Thatcher could not understand members of the house of Lords considered it their duty to protect the British and British society. There is no hope of any agreement regarding changes to the Senate/Lords by the two main political parties in Australia or the UK not being in the greater interests of themselves and not the country. So the question is, who in Australia is impartial enough to create a Senate that will sort out the political ideology and favours for their paymasters', and have a Senate for all Australians'.

Lehan Ramsay:

03 Jan 2014 3:50:27pm

I also wonder if our Lords are really up to the job. It's like Prime Minister Abbott saying he's really ready now for the top job. So is Prince Charles but so far there's been no sight of him in the parliamentary backbenches.

Ummm:

03 Jan 2014 5:13:44pm

I hope they would also change the name of this House of Review from the 'House of Lords' to something a bit more democratic. The name 'House of Lords' reinforces the odious 'class system' which has plagued Britain for centuries and it is high time it started to disappear.

Let's call it 'The House of Hopefully Smarter than Average People' or some such aspirational name. (P.S. That is not a serious name, although I think it still sounds better than 'The House of Lords', unless the 'Upper House' is occupied by God, Allah, Krishna and Buddha etc - these beings are all considered 'Lords' by vast numbers of humans across the globe.)

I find it hard to be serious sometimes. This world is really such a silly place... : )

J.T:

03 Jan 2014 5:19:10pm

The Federal Parliaments system of parliament would work fine if the parliament respected its role as outlined in the executive powers section of our constitution. Not to mention returned income taxing powers to the states as per how the constitution was set up. One sentence in the constitution about disputes of law arising and the Federal government will taking precedence, has allowed it to run ruff shot over states? rights.

Give the federal government less to do, stop replication of departments (there are state and federal departments of health and education), return income tax to the states?

The Senate only becomes an issue because of the partisan nature of senators from individual states.

Common Liberals, do what your belief system implies and stand up for states rights...or like Howard show that your commitment to states rights is a mile wide but only an inch deep.

lilly:

03 Jan 2014 5:31:16pm

This article is quite right however you'd have zero chance of getting any reform that is positive. The political parties control the parliament and they would never release power to people over whom they have no control.

I think we'd have a better chance of lodging a high court challenge regarding the power of political parties to control the way its members vote. The law states that it is a crime to dishonestly influence a public official (including MPs) in the course of their duty. Political parties have no legal power to require that MPs vote one way or another. In the absence of any legal footing they threaten members with disciplinary action if they don't vote along party lines. To coerce an MP in this fashion without any legal power to do so is, to my mind, dishonest. I'm certain that any QC would be able to put a convincing case to the High Court along these lines.

PS: Recently Clive Palmer demonstrated that a company can effectively buy seats in parliament. How long will it be before this idea catches on and private/public companies start running their own candidates who, when elected, will ensure that laws are passed which are favorable to their company. For an initial investment of say $30 million in advertising to get a few senators elected, that company could hold tremendous influence over legislation. If done cleverly, the new senator(s) wouldn't ever have to declare their association on the pecuniary interests register.

Greg Warner:

03 Jan 2014 6:38:18pm

We do not need a "Senate".Even the name is an anachronism.We are NOT Rome, nor do we need a quasi "House of Lords" to keep the hoi polloi in check!The House of Representatives which represents the direct SPECIFIC vote of all citizens can function as the single "House" of Parliament.Previous Labor policy supported the abolition of the Senate.It is time to reexamine this policy and, for the Coalition in it's current form in a spirit of Reform (that may be an oxymoron) to support a unicameral Australian Parliament.As the Convenor of the Liberal Republican Party of Australia I suggest all forward thinking Liberals and Australian Republicans support this wise and natural evolution of the way our nation is governed.

MDG:

03 Jan 2014 7:43:18pm

The House of Representatives comes nowhere close to representing the votes of Australians. If it did, the Greens would have nine seats instead of one (they got 8.65% of the vote), the ALP (33.38%) would have more seats than the Liberals (32.02%) and the Palmer United Party (5.49%) would outnumber the Nationals (4.29%).

Even if you want to say that the final two-party preferred result is reflected by the House, you'd still be wrong. By that measure, the Coalition should have 80 to 81 seats instead of 90 and Labor should have 69 or 70 instead of just 55. And, of course, the Howard Government would have been defeated in 1998.

In terms of reflecting the votes of the electorate, especially for the minor parties, micro parties and independents who are essentially locked out of the House by the way the system works, the Senate is far more representative. Barring, of course, the twisting of preference flows that gets us the like of Senator Steve Fielding, Ricky Muir et al on low single- or even decimal-digit percentages of actual votes!

DannyS:

Appointing people by way of a commission doesn't seem to be very democratic. Who appoints the members of the commission?

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

if someday we could get past the interstate rivalries and truly consider ourselves an actual nation, irrespective of where we live, then we might just have a chance at having a truly representative democracy.

Not holding my breath though. Differing railway gauges were symptomatic of regional iconoclastic views, before a national system could even be proposed much less destroyed.

Latest Episode

Hot Topic

The Prime Minister has announced Australia will be expanding its military role in Iraq for up to two years. Tony Abbott has signed off on sending 300 Australian soldiers for a joint mission with New Zealand.

It's a fundamental human yearning to be a part of something bigger than one's self, and maybe that's what drove my mate Ash to die, far from home, in a bloody foreign war against Islamic State, writes C August Elliott.